Here's another example (the Scientific American articles focus not solely on young earth creationists but other science deniers too):https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... in-europe/On AiG's homepage, where this article by Simon Turpin is flagged, they state: "Recently the magazine Scientific American published two articles accusing creationists of being anti-science and lamenting the supposed threat to science". Well, young earth creationists are indeed anti-science and if they deny it they are being untruthful. They might enjoy scientific topics but they steadfastly deny reams of evidence-based conclusions about the past (and sometimes the present too) derived via the scientific method and published in peer-reviewed literature by the international scientific community. For reasons of 'divine authority', doctrine and dogma. Not for scientific reasons.

Turpin asks "But is the reason that people reject evolution that they have not been sufficiently educated about it? Or could it be that people do understand evolution and reject it because they rightly understand its claims?" I suspect it's either the former or it's that the people concerned are religious (Christian or Muslim in particular) and may also have been indoctrinated by organisations like Answers in Genesis that evolution (and deep time) are theories (or 'not even proper theories just conjectures and stories') that are 'in crisis' but which scientists and educators 'cling onto' nevertheless because they are 'anti-God' or 'anti-Christian' and refuse to accept the alleged validity of young earth creationism.

In the quotation by Mark Harrison that is cited, Harrison does not use the word 'worldview' and even if he had he would not have been using it they way AiG use it - ie as in this article: https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/ Harrison simply voiced his opinion that some beliefs about what the early Earth was like are not based upon any 'observational evidence'. The article in The Atlantic concludes:"Wadhwa says lunar samples and zircon samples are so limited that we still can’t paint a full picture of the Earth’s turbulent early days. In one sense, everyone might be a little bit right. Earth might have been nice and calm in the time between major impacts. Or some areas might have been molten, while some areas might have been solid and covered in oceans, she says.One thing is clear, however: Harrison says there has never been any evidence to support the canonical hellish vision of magma lakes and tar-colored volcanos showered in fiery meteors.“There is absolutely not a single scrap of observational evidence that requires that scenario ever took place. We as a scientific community created an origin myth that has no more intellectual value than 1 Genesis,” Harrison says. “Although we’re very quick to criticize those that operate on faith, that’s exactly what we did.”" If they created a 'myth' it was not a 'worldview' inspired myth based upon "using the Bible to explain the evidence" - which is what the anti-science apologists at AiG advocate in that website article linked to above. Evidence should be explained and understood by what science has already learnt or observed - NOT based upon any ancient religious book. According to the 'naturalism' that YECs and others hate.

Turpin alleges: "Rejecting Darwinian evolution is not rejecting science but rejecting an ideology." The exact same thing is true of the 'Biblical creationism' put forward by AiG (and other similar outfits - which is not always entirely homogenous). They are putting forward ideology. Rejecting the 'Biblical creationism' of AiG (which is not 'the Bible' but apologetics and science rejection loosely based upon the Bible) is not rejecting science but rejecting an ideology based upon biblical theism.

AiG try to set up a false equivalence between naturalism and (their) biblical theism when doing science.

And if AiG were not anti-science they would not be churning out this sort of dogmatic nonsense:https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-an ... d-ice-age/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... 264bd0954f"Mistaken information [in the Washington Post] includes the provided absolute dates and the claim that pygmy mammoths “evolved” from Columbian mammoths ... The problem is what lies behind the Post’s use of the word “evolve.” When they selected the word “evolve,” it was doubtless intended to imply something more than simply one mammoth species originating from another. Instead, they almost certainly are implying that this particular instance of “evolution” is one twig on a single tree of transformation connecting all of biological life—neo-Darwinian evolution, or as some have described it, “goo to you.”" There is plenty of evidence for such a tree.

"Rather than there existing a single biologic tree—absolute unity—or many rootless twigs of unchanging species, the biblical creationist model posits that God created a number of separate trees: distinct kinds." The 'biblical creationist model' is not in the Bible. What is found in the Bible is unchanging species (or kinds if you use 'kind' as a synonym for 'species'). The fact that life was created in instalments does NOT imply what today's YECs have been forced to accept - the reality of endless speciation (which does not biologically have to limit itself to eg 'within birds' or 'within lizards' but never from the latter to the former).

"... There is a more significant problem with the dating claims. When the Bible’s history (e.g. the genealogies in Genesis) is synchronized with other historical records, we find that all creation is around 6,000 years old ... all of these animals—the new mammoth, Columbian mammoths, and pygmy mammoths—must have died after the Fall of man. Therefore, the rock layer in which the skull was found, the appearance of Columbian mammoths, and all glacial periods are actually much younger than the article states." AiG have NO material evidence that favours these dogmatic assertions. This is DENIAL of science, full stop.

"In fact, biblical creationist models predict that an ice age is one likely consequence of the global Flood. Furthermore, the physical evidence for a post-Flood Ice Age is compelling." It is not remotely compelling - I've looked at the link to their previous fantasising - there was NO 'ice age' during the last 4,500 years and AiG are lying if they are insisting that there was. There was NO 'global flood' 4,500 years ago. There were NO abnormally warm oceans at this time (or since). Not even in the Bible! There was NO enormously widespread simultaneous ie highly massive or unusual 'extensive volcanic activity' at this time (or since). Not even in the Bible! The YEC ice age NEVER happened. Not in the Bible. And not on Planet Earth either. NO mammoth died because of any (recent) 'post-Flood Ice Age'. This is yet another case of AiG defending 'the Bible' by making up lies and also adding to what the Bible actually states - including that seedtime and harvest, and summer and winter, would never (again) cease post-flood.

"And while the absolute date of 11,000 BC is unreliable, the relative dates for the mammoth and human remains probably are reliable—meaning they likely did live at the same time." That's not science. It's a dogma-driven dabbling, where rather than rejecting ALL reality they do cherry pick the odd finding that they either like or consider can be deemed 'biblical' or which is totally undeniable. Thus they accept the reality that humans almost certainly encountered mammoths before they died out (but they also ridiculously make the same claim for humans and dinosaurs in other articles).

The whole title of this article is misleading propaganda - based upon the fact that mammoths were around during the last REAL ice age glaciation (which ended well over 6,000 years ago) - 'Mystery Mammoth Points to a Global Flood and Ice Age'. It does NO SUCH THING. They would almost certainly not say the same thing if a dinosaur fossil had been found in the same island location. (People associate mammoths with the last, real ice age.)

Not only do they constantly push garbage like this, but AiG and other well-funded YEC outfits also regularly attack scientists and the media who report the scientists' peer reviewed conclusions.